Agreed, these are just business deals and cities don’t have the personnel to be able to negotiate such deals. Owning a NFL team as they say is a money printing machine it doesn’t make sense for cities not to benefit more.

However, there likely could be an argument for the amount of economic impact that is made on a yearly basis, get ahold of those figures maybe these numbers don’t seem as crazy.

Just as an example just over just the 3 day NBA all star event the net economic impact was $248.9 million….

Some of the best leverage the city has in the negotiations especially if they went with the east of downtown site is eminent domain

I'd rather they put it at the Post Office site.  Football stadiums get used about a dozen times a year.  The rest of the year they're big hulking wastes of space.  It doesn't belong on prime lakefront land or so close to the middle of Downtown.  I'm not a fan of cutting up our street grid for yet another megablock for it, either.

I’d bet there’s more to this area east of downtown we’d be destroying than meets the eye. Beyond the stadium itself there’s also parking. And from what I know of the surrounding neighborhood (replete with craftsmen, specialized tooling, artists, film studios, and industrial businesses), that will all get changed too. And just so the Haslams can avoid building a roof on the existing stadium? Put it on the Postal Service lot. East of downtown would be a mess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

6 hours ago, dave2017 said:

What if the new location of the stadium becomes the actual land bridge?   The exterior design could be the original Burnham train station envisioned at the end of The Malls and make a domed stadium that becomes the finished connection to The Convention Center and an intermodal station below the field.   This opens up the existing stadium location for a better use freeing up the lakefront acreage.   The sides of the stadium can have stunning promenades over the railway tracks.  The best is it activates the dead zoned the land bridge can be incorporated into the new stadium build.

Wow I love this.

 

Is there enough room to build it without demolishing FE though? That would be my big concern with the location, since I'm guessing a demo on FE while the replacement is under construction would be no bueno.

5 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Agreed, these are just business deals and cities don’t have the personnel to be able to negotiate such deals. Owning a NFL team as they say is a money printing machine it doesn’t make sense for cities not to benefit more.

However, there likely could be an argument for the amount of economic impact that is made on a yearly basis, get ahold of those figures maybe these numbers don’t seem as crazy.

Just as an example just over just the 3 day NBA all star event the net economic impact was $248.9 million….

I think the overall economic benefit of professional sports is overstated. These are (for the most part) just entertainment dollars that would be spent elsewhere locally. I could see baseball or basketball, where you have dozens of events a year, perhaps at least pointing dollars to a specific neighborhood. But there really isn’t a purely economic argument for subsidizing stadiums. 
 

https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2017-05-01/the-economics-of-subsidizing-sports-stadiums/

11 minutes ago, ASP1984 said:

I’d bet there’s more to this area east of downtown we’d be destroying than meets the eye. Beyond the stadium itself there’s also parking. And from what I know of the surrounding neighborhood (replete with craftsmen, specialized tooling, artists, film studios, and industrial businesses), that will all get changed too. And just so the Haslams can avoid building a roof on the existing stadium? Put it on the Postal Service lot. East of downtown would be a mess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Leather Stallion in danger of being converted into a Yard House or Bar Louie

Was riding in an Uber a little earlier and the driver was listening to 850AM @KJP got called out by name and given kudos a couple of times by the presenters. 

41 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

How about this idea which was actually proposed many years ago. Cut out a channel to straighten the Cuyahoga River, fill in the unused section of the river behind Tower City, then build the stadium on the filled-in section.  Is it possible?

 

Save the money on the channel by taking Scranton-Averill to court for their half of the peninsula. Put it there.

38 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Wow I love this.

 

Is there enough room to build it without demolishing FE though? That would be my big concern with the location, since I'm guessing a demo on FE while the replacement is under construction would be no bueno.

The other concern I’d have is whether it would eat into the Great Lakes Science Center. It looks like it’d be cutting it close.

4 minutes ago, BuckeyeNative said:

The other concern I’d have is whether it would eat into the Great Lakes Science Center. It looks like it’d be cutting it close.

My concern is that the placement, size and architecture will over shadow City Hall and the Old Courthouse.

^ What's the point of moving the stadium a short distance away?   It's nice that it would connect to the convention center, but it would still be basically on the lakefront.

7 hours ago, dave2017 said:

What if the new location of the stadium becomes the actual land bridge?   The exterior design could be the original Burnham train station envisioned at the end of The Malls and make a domed stadium that becomes the finished connection to The Convention Center and an intermodal station below the field.   This opens up the existing stadium location for a better use freeing up the lakefront acreage.   The sides of the stadium can have stunning promenades over the railway tracks.  The best is it activates the dead zoned the land bridge can be incorporated into the new stadium build.

I thought this idea was kind of crazy at first, but the more I think about, the more I like the potential if the Hassan’s and the city got creative with it.

 

Assuming they could just open up both ends of the stadium to allow pedestrians to pass through when it’s not in use, there’s a built-in supply of concessionaires that could operate daily instead of 10 times per year.  There could be tables for dining where the field usually is so people could stop to eat while crossing the land bridge.

 

Since the stadium has a retractable roof, the land bridge would as well.  It also would make a lot more sense for the public to help finance if it will be able to use it daily.

 

This location would also be pretty much adjacent to the convention center, which would be helpful for attracting events that need a lot of space.

2 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

^ What's the point of moving the stadium a short distance away?   It's nice that it would connect to the convention center, but it would still be basically on the lakefront.

My (very naive) perspective: I think it’d have the convenience of being on/connected to the lakefront while opening up the entire lakefront for development. It also wouldn’t require the Browns to take away multiple blocks from, say, St. Clair Avenue just to build a stadium. 
 

Wow I love this.
 

Same. And there’s a comp for that - TD Garden / North Station in Boston.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

hasn’t the team announced they plan to renovate FE?

6 minutes ago, OldEnough said:

hasn’t the team announced they plan to renovate FE?

 

Publicly, the Browns say they are likely to do that, but they condition that by saying they are studying it as well as a new stadium.

Since we're letting opinions be known, I'm not a huge fan of the east side site - you'd have to demo a lot of buildings as someone said up top and I'm not convinced you'd get the amount of usage or economic benefit that folks are speaking about. Also, I'm partial, but where's Noble Beast in all of this?!? I look to the area around Ford Field in Detroit (even Little Caesars Arena) and despite promises to build out the areas around them there's really not much going on. 

 

I think the Post Office site would be great (despite most browns fans driving in from outside of the county) but you'd think it may give RTA a boost on game days with people parking and riding. Also, as far as demolition and moving businesses/people is concerned this is most painless. Lastly, per the Goodyear Blimp shots, etc. etc., this stadium will be here for a long time - who's to say that things won't change in 20-30-50 years in this area?

9 hours ago, dave2017 said:

What if the new location of the stadium becomes the actual land bridge?   The exterior design could be the original Burnham train station envisioned at the end of The Malls and make a domed stadium that becomes the finished connection to The Convention Center and an intermodal station below the field.   This opens up the existing stadium location for a better use freeing up the lakefront acreage.   The sides of the stadium can have stunning promenades over the railway tracks.  The best is it activates the dead zoned the land bridge can be incorporated into the new stadium build.

I really appreciate the effort you put into this proposal! That said, I Don't like it. This would completely castrate the land bridge to the point it wouldn't serve its intended purpose of providing a direct and pleasant pedestrian connection from the downtown core to the lakefront. I think that is extremely important to the city and shouldn't be sacrificed for a stadium.

 

Plus, I think this location is just as much of prime real estate as the current location, and has all of the associated drawbacks that come with that. 

 

I think I favor the intermodal yard site, as I like the idea of grouping the stadiums together. I think it allows the stadiums to share some common costs and benefits, such as parking and E4th. Plus the site is just outside of downtown (still walkable) on land that would otherwise be difficult to develop or repurpose. I could be content with either of the other two options though. 

3 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

How about this idea which was actually proposed many years ago. Cut out a channel to straighten the Cuyahoga River, fill in the unused section of the river behind Tower City, then build the stadium on the filled-in section.  Is it possible?

 

 

That idea would be cool but if you think about it, straightening out a winding river takes away a whole ton of riverfront. The bend of the river allows for a lot of cool development all along the riverfront. By shortening the river and filling in the bend, prime real estate turns into just more bland land.

I'm a little confused on how this might all work.  The stadium and all the land on the lake belongs to the City of Cleveland, right?  And the Haslam's need the lakefront development to fund the new stadium, right?  Then does the City just GIVE the Haslams the 70 acres on the lake to develop for a profit?  Then the Haslams will use that profit to pay for their portion of the new stadium?  Do the City and Haslams form some sort of joint partnership, like the Gateway Corp.?

 

Also, if the lakefront development is needed to fund the new stadium, but the new stadium needs to be built first to make room for the new development, do they just front the money for the new stadium and hope the lakefront development is a success?

 

I'm not trying to be a nay-sayer.  I'm just honestly trying to understand how this deal would work.  Any insight from those in the biz?

 

 

^ Fair questions.

The city cannot sell or otherwise transfer this landfill land to anyone except the state because the ownership is disputed. It could be considered city-owned land or state-owned land to which is what nearly all submerged land along the shoreline lists.

 

The city can lease the land, however.  But assets on the leased land cannot be bought or sold, such as townhouses, condos or other structures.

15 hours ago, dave2017 said:

What if the new location of the stadium becomes the actual land bridge?   The exterior design could be the original Burnham train station envisioned at the end of The Malls and make a domed stadium that becomes the finished connection to The Convention Center and an intermodal station below the field.   This opens up the existing stadium location for a better use freeing up the lakefront acreage.   The sides of the stadium can have stunning promenades over the railway tracks.  The best is it activates the dead zoned the land bridge can be incorporated into the new stadium build.

I believe we have to make decisions based on personnel as well, over an amtrak station it could be a hot spot! But we also have to think of supposed mass transit terrorist attacks. I'm all for it but the science center is too close, and it also restricts viewpoints of the lake from the mall lawn. I'm sure the cpc wouldn't like the idea of blocking the 4th side of our own 'Central Park'.

HOWEVER...
The warehouse district is not a very big hotspot for business anymore, it's not a very big tourist attraction, I feel like they're trying to move towards actual vacant land but not thinking about building vacancies per block. Past the Rockefeller Center there's almost no tourism unless you make way to flats west bank. If we could demolish some vacant brown & red brick that plagues the west side, and redirect some grid roads, we may have plenty of space to actually build a new stadium.

Edited June 21, 20222 yr by tastybunns

Too bad we couldn't talk the port into relocating like it was proposed about 10 years ago. At the time they made some ridiculous statement that it would take about 20 years for it to move. How about 18 months, you relocate at the Eastern end of the landfill at Burke lakefront airport. You build about four warehouses, which are basically pole barns, cut a few water slips, lay down asphalt for the loading areas, run a rail spur to it, build a small headquarters building and you're in business. Land at the existing port would be freed up for a state of the art facility and FES would be cleared for more mixed use development. Ah one can dream...

2 hours ago, tastybunns said:

I believe we have to make decisions based on personnel as well, over an amtrak station it could be a hot spot! But we also have to think of supposed mass transit terrorist attacks. I'm all for it but the science center is too close, and it also restricts viewpoints of the lake from the mall lawn. I'm sure the cpc wouldn't like the idea of blocking the 4th side of our own 'Central Park'.

HOWEVER...
The warehouse district is not a very big hotspot for business anymore, it's not a very big tourist attraction, I feel like they're trying to move towards actual vacant land but not thinking about building vacancies per block. Past the Rockefeller Center there's almost no tourism unless you make way to flats west bank. If we could demolish some vacant brown & red brick that plagues the west side, and redirect some grid roads, we may have plenty of space to actually build a new stadium.

There are zero vacant buildings in that red box. I’m guessing this post is a joke.

Edited June 22, 20222 yr by marty15

9 minutes ago, marty15 said:

There are zero vacant buildings in that red box. I’m guessing this post is a joke.

🤣 Mostly, but if they're moving east side they're gonna make some pretty big considerations.

Let's do it again!!

 

 

^ Am I the only one who always thinks that bomber-pilot looks about 12 years old??

 

EDIT: I’m enjoying an evening stroll and legit just walked right by Jimmy Haslam sat in his TN-plated Range Rover outside the Browns stadium. I’m sure it’s totally unrelated to whatever @KJPhas up his sleeve…

 

Source: Browns want inland stadium with roof
By Ken Prendergast / June 27, 2022

 

A third source has now communicated with NEOtrans that the Cleveland Browns favor a new, retractable roof stadium built off the lakefront but in or near downtown. And this source is a high-ranking official within the National Football League team itself. Despite this, a team spokesman angrily denied the report and called the source “not credible.”

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2022/06/27/source-browns-want-inland-stadium-with-roof/

Can someone please tell me where this flyover bridge is? It is mentioned a few times in this article.

I am assuming it is the  Elevated bridge part of Rte 2 next to the stadium.

Next year should be exciting with some big feasibility studies concluding

22 minutes ago, simplythis said:

Can someone please tell me where this flyover bridge is? It is mentioned a few times in this article.

I am assuming it is the  Elevated bridge part of Rte 2 next to the stadium.

It's this, I have posted about this in the past as to why it can't be renovated in the meantime. I mean we are 5 years away from a land bridge

Oh no! At about 11 pm tonight, Ken receives an email from Jimmy Haslam that based on this article, the Browns have canceled all feasibility studies and no longer have plans  to upgrade or build a new Browns stadium in Cleveland. 🥺

In other words, Dee and Jimmy want another complimentary tens of millions of dollars for stadium upkeep/"enhancements", after which they'll try to extort the city/county for a free $1-3 billion dollar stadium in ten years or so.

 

 

12 minutes ago, DO_Summers said:

Oh no! At about 11 pm tonight, Ken receives an email from Jimmy Haslam that based on this article, the Browns have canceled all feasibility studies and no longer have plans  to upgrade or build a new Browns stadium in Cleveland. 🥺

They will be moving the team out of Cleveland  

3 minutes ago, freefourur said:

They will be moving the team out of Cleveland  

Dallas, Atlanta and Charlotte are the front runners to land them.

Thank God someone has enough brains to know that moving that monstrosity AWAY from the lakefront is a good idea. It's taking up valuable space that can be used year-round. Redevelopment of that area would be a COMPLETE game changer for the city. Can anyone say The Cleveland Eye ferris wheel?

I hope @KJP’s sources are truth tellers.
 I just keep imagining our downtown lakefront open for development - especially for some high rise residential development.  (Yea, I know Burke is an issue at present) The city needs more residents  first and foremost and an open lakefront would be an unprecedented opportunity.  Can’t even think of another city in the country with such a resource and opportunity. 
 

I know there’s a list of extremely formidable challenges to that sort of future - but the notion that the Browns may seek a downtown stadium away from the lakefront is the critical first domino that has to fall. Ken’s article gives me reason to believe that what was once unthinkable could become possible. 

It’s all smoke til they build on Scranton Peninsula 🙃

I guess I don't understand why the current stadium is such an impediment to new development?  There's 20 acres of lakefront property that is vacant right now.  That is roughly the area from E. 9th to E. 12th, between Erievew Plaza and Chester Ave.  In that space there is a shopping mall, 6 legit skyscrapers, 6 large parking garages, a hardscape plaza and 2 decent sized urban greenspaces.  As far as creating a draw to the lakefront and activating the area around the stadium goes, wouldn't that be pretty good?  Yes there are access issues, but I think a land bridge and Shoreway alterations get more likely by adding development around the existing stadium.

2 hours ago, Dino said:

I guess I don't understand why the current stadium is such an impediment to new development?  There's 20 acres of lakefront property that is vacant right now.  That is roughly the area from E. 9th to E. 12th, between Erievew Plaza and Chester Ave.  In that space there is a shopping mall, 6 legit skyscrapers, 6 large parking garages, a hardscape plaza and 2 decent sized urban greenspaces.  As far as creating a draw to the lakefront and activating the area around the stadium goes, wouldn't that be pretty good?  Yes there are access issues, but I think a land bridge and Shoreway alterations get more likely by adding development around the existing stadium.

Whilst stadiums/arenas (especially football stadiums) are only used a limited number of times per year, its become apparent in the last decade or so that the presence of stadiums however is attracting additional development across the country and that train isn't show signs of stopping anytime soon. The stadium staying where it is is not going to be a total barrier to further development IMO. This isn't the 70s where stadiums were built surrounded expressways and surface parking lots with no consideration for their external surroundings. Teams are wanting to make money beyond gamedays now. Theres clearly a market for people who like having their favorite team on their doorstep and a view of the stadium from their bedroom or living room window or being able to walk to a game from their place of work.

 

Of course cities and municipalities are still being ripped off, but they are increasingly at least getting some sort of beneficial spin off now.

On 6/21/2022 at 9:30 AM, KJP said:

 

Cool idea. I just wonder how Norfolk Southern and the National Transportation Safety Board would feel about running mile-long trains, some with hazardous materials, under the butts of 70,000 people.

I expect that they wouldn't like it.  But I'm not wild about hazardous materials moving through my neighborhood either.

 

On 6/21/2022 at 9:30 AM, KJP said:

Now if we opened up the Lakefront Bypass and rerouted the hazardous shipments out of downtown to the NS line just south of downtown, that's might be doable but would add tens of millions if not hundreds of millions to the cost. It taps different pots of money, however.

 

If we win the lottery we'll set you to work on rearranging our rail lines and as a bonus we'll let you site the new Browns stadium, too!

 

Just in case you're interested...

 

Emerging Podcast Scene - Ken Prendergast on the future of Browns StadiumThe Ken Carman Show with Anthony Lima

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/emerging-podcast-scene-ken-prendergast-on-the-future/id1033244883?i=1000568004450

13 hours ago, KJP said:

Just in case you're interested...

 

Emerging Podcast Scene - Ken Prendergast on the future of Browns StadiumThe Ken Carman Show with Anthony Lima

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/emerging-podcast-scene-ken-prendergast-on-the-future/id1033244883?i=1000568004450

 

Hmmm, hearing the slightest tinge of a "Great Lakes" accent haha. Very apropos for the Lakefront thread! 

I see the Buffalo Bills site plan is out. Now thats an urban planning disaster if I ever saw one.

On 7/2/2022 at 7:35 PM, snakebite said:

I see the Buffalo Bills site plan is out. Now thats an urban planning disaster if I ever saw one.

 

Bills fan here, I concur, but as a tailgater I'll take it. The major reason they chose that site was because of existing infrastructure and the amount of time it would've taken to build/property acquisition within the city. The top deck of the stadium is failing so time wasn't really on the Bills' side, but I guess all good things can't last forever. It was built around the same time Arrowhead was and although they put a ton of money into that, Ralph Wilson/Rich/Highmark/New Era Stadium wasn't worth saving/rehabbing. 

 

When my brother came up for the Bills Browns game a few years ago it was pretty awesome being able to take the bus home after partaking in the muni lot shenanigans, I mentioned it upthread but it'd be pretty awesome and maybe a boost to RTA to have the stadium on a more convenient rail line. 

In case you haven’t seen it yet, here’s Ken’s piece in Cleveland magazine

https://clevelandmagazine.com/in-the-cle/the-read/articles/will-cleveland-ever-develop-its-lakefront-new-plans-are-a-step-closer

On 6/27/2022 at 4:49 PM, roman totale XVII said:

^ Am I the only one who always thinks that bomber-pilot looks about 12 years old??

 

EDIT: I’m enjoying an evening stroll and legit just walked right by Jimmy Haslam sat in his TN-plated Range Rover outside the Browns stadium. I’m sure it’s totally unrelated to whatever @KJPhas up his sleeve…

I actually seem to always concentrate on the eye covers and the hat and to me that part looks like a muppet

 

Wow. 

I don't mind having The Cleveland Browns Stadium remain where it is currently located if this vision remains.   Couldn't they tear down the existing stadium and have the team play in Canton, at The Hall of Fame's field, for a few years during construction?

Edited July 7, 20222 yr by dave2017

7 hours ago, dave2017 said:

I don't mind having The Cleveland Browns Stadium remain where it I currently located if this vision remains.   Couldn't we tear down the existing stadium and have the team play,in Canton at The Hall of Fame's field, for a few years ?

 

It might if the Browns can't get public funding to pay a significant share of a new stadium off the lake.